Until recently, Clay Shirky was best known as the author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. The book was widely praised (seriously, Boing Boing calls it a “masterpiece”) and is still referenced by social media strategist/expert/guru types as a must-read for anyone looking to explore the social dynamics that drive the use of technology, which at the time (and even now, to a certain extent) is not what drives most conversation about the internet and social media in particular.

Rather than focusing the catalyst of online social behavior on specific technologies (i.e. what makes Facebook so popular?) Shirky argued that social tools facilitates common group behavior, conversation and social interaction. At the time, the beginning of Facebook’s online dominance and in the midst of growing fascination and panic about social media from the mainstream press. Shirky presented a reasoned, articulate and well-researched argument that the idea of “crowdsourcing” was not a new idea, but actually rooted in common, even traditional social interaction. The Internet just made that interaction happen more widely and more rapidly.

If you talk to any social media/internet “expert” or “enthusiast” these days, this perspective is seen as common knowledge, but without Shirky’s well-presented theory and research to bolster this theory it wouldn’t have taken root.

In 2010, you’d think that this argument wouldn’t need repeating or clarification, but as traditional media continues to evolve and digital use continues to grow and become more ubiquitous, the panic of social theorists and mainstream media commentators continues unabated. The continuing debate of whether the Internet makes you smarter or more stupid seems to have a new chapter each day, but in Cognitive Surplus, Shirky’s latest book, he does add fuel to that fire, but also offers a modified version of his Here Comes Everybody thesis: The Internet has given us the tools to create, publish and share media faster, cheaper and with more people than ever before

Shirky’s revised thesis is the reason that I think Cognitive Surplus is a must-read (there’s that term again) for media professionals in every field.

Like this:

Recently, the power of the fangirl has been seen as having potential economic power, especially with the huge opening of New Moon. And regardless of one’s own personal feelings about Twilight , these fans have power in through sheer numbers.

I’m not sure why this is a sudden revelation, but it likely has to do with the more familiar “hiding in plain sight” fangirl of the comics, gaming, sports, music, etc. variety, considering that in *all* of those areas, the stereotypical fan is a dude.

Jezebel has an interesting post on this “chicks spend money on entertainment!” phenomenon:

“New Moon explodes the myth… that fanboys hold all the power,” Pamela McClintock writes for Variety. … Women buy movie tickets, and we’re interested in great stories with women in the lead roles. And! Fangirls should be taken seriously. As Women & Hollywood’s Melissa Silverstein writes for The Huffington Post:

… I’m not trying to say that all women’s films will be as successful as New Moon because that’s silly. These kinds of movies come along rarely cause Hollywood hardly makes them. But this weekend’s number indicate that they should make more of them.

But not all women like gender-specific (or directed) fandoms — and sometimes girls and women are looking for non-sexist, non-racist material regardless of whether there is female representation (as a edit to the Bechdel rule).

But there are often different ways in which women and girls approach fandom, in economic and other ways:

What does the crazy fangirl plotline on Supernatural mean?

Why is there a wave of hardcore bands with female-centered names with no female members (Daughters, Baroness)?

Why does so much of Genghis Tron merch seem appropriate to decorate the room of a small child?

Was the way the Doctor decided what happened to Donna an assault?

Which reboot, Star Trek or Sherlock Holmes, better lives up to its slash potential?

And these types of questions are more important in connecting with female fans as a big opening weekend for one movie in a popular book series because (secret here!), the next girl/women-focused movie isn’t going to do as well.There are still plenty of ways of energizing female fans — but figurine washing laundry and contests to ComicCon that don’t allow female fans just aren’t going to cut it in this brave new fandom world.

Like this:

So I was at a reception the other day, talking to someone about the internet and the free/gift economy and how it’s the inevitable future of a lot of industries, including journalism. The discussion invariably turned to Chris Anderson’s Free: The Future of a Radical Price and I talked up the book and Anderson’s theories.

“So you liked the book, then?” asked my colleague.
“No, not really.” I said, after a pause.
Considering my enthusiasm over Anderson’s last book, The Long Tail, and my own defense of the free/gift economy model on this very blog, my cool reception to “Free” surprised the hell out of me, too.

With all the hype and debate surrounding Chris Anderson’s book, months before it was even released, it’s no wonder that the backlash started less than a week after it officially hit bookstores. Earlier this year, the influential Wired editor and author of The Long Tail brought his thesis of giving products away as marketing strategy to South by Southwest and was greeted with as much skepticism as enthusiasm from attendees (myself included). So Malcolm Gladwell’s review of the book in the New Yorker summed up a lot of the overall criticism of the book, even before it was released:Continue Reading

Like this:

Once again, Joss Whedon’s latest television show, Dollhouse, like Buffy, Angel, and Firefly before it, was on the verge of cancellation. But not this time. Why? I think it is the recognition of the long tail of fandom.

Fox ordered a second season of “Dollhouse” which, some industry navel-gazers note, may be the lowest-rated series ever to get a renewal in the history of broadcast TV….

A case of the tail wagging the dog you say? … Not at all. Because, starting this season: Broadcast TV is the new tail.

This season it’s all about that “other stuff” that does so much to make a network’s parent-company happy.

Yes, some of the reason for the renewal has to do with symbiotic ownership — by owning both the show and the producing studio, more ad dollars can be kept in house. But the long tail of fandom is equally important.

So what is the impact of the long tail of fandom? In 2006, Henry Jenkins discussed fandom’s long tail about Joss Whedon’s previous series/movie Firefly/Serenity.

if we follow the logic of the Long Tail, success on one end of the tail depends on deep commitments from a relatively narrow fan base (that’s what Firefly had) and on the other end, on superficial commitments from a broader range of viewers (and that’s what Snakes on a Plane has.) I doubt anyone really has the same level of passion for Snakes as they have for Firefly. It’s a fun lark — a one night stand, a vacation movie romance. But it isn’t a once in a lifetime passion.

Joss Whedon now has built up a highly successful fandom base. Jenkins states that

Serenity had one of the most committed fan bases in media history and they would have followed Whedon anywhere …

Creating and sustaining new fanbases these days is becoming increasingly difficult. Since Jenkins wrote his post three years ago, there has been an increasing drop in television audiences, new ways that people are using their free time (such as Facebook & Twitter), and the video game industry is picking up much of the remainder.

The huge returns for two movies based in the long-standing fandoms of X-Men and Star Trek, show the ways that the long tail of truly dedicated fandom can still pay out for corporate owners over time. And considering Whedon’s long highly successful fandom track record, it likely makes financial sense to keep a show where fans will always buy the merch even if the overall ratings are bad.

Full disclosure: For me as a viewer, I have experienced Whedon’s work as an example of another type of long tail — diminishing returns!, liking each next thing he does less than the ones before.